cross-linguistic categorization

[Engin Arik]

I think we shouldn't forget about sign languages which are natural human
languages before making cross-linguistic generalizations.

Best,
Engin Arik

-- 
Engin Arik, Ph.D.

http://sites.google.com/site/enginarikweb/




Quoting Geoff Nathan <geoffnathan at wayne.edu>:

> If one doesn’t assume Aristotelian-flavoring for cross-linguistic
> substantive categories one can be much happier and retain the idea that
> languages actually have universals of some kind. As a (natural/cognitive)
> phonologist I am happy to say that pretty much all languages have consonants
> and vowels, syllables, probably feet and perhaps somewhat larger units
> (words, breath groups, some such...)
> In any case we don’t have to say that all languages MUST have some
> particular structure, but we can note that, say, all languages that have
> syllables have CV syllables (Larry Hyman argued that one of ‘his’
> languages actually didn’t have syllables, but there are few competitors),
> some subset have CVC syllables, and a smaller subset have more complex
> offerings.
> Similarly, all languages have a vowel height contrast, and if they have a
> color contrast (labial/round vs. palatal/front) those vowels will tend to be
> high rather than mid.  But, although nothing is absolute, there are strong
> tendencies that have perceptual and/or motoric explanations (color contrasts
> are easy to perceive, stop contrasts that cluster in the three primary
> articulatory regions are easiest to make). This would lead us to expect that
> the distribution of categories will follow the typical radial prototype
> category structure, with central members that just about everybody has, with
> more peripheral members (say front rounded vowels, or CCVCCC syllables) being
> correspondingly more scarce and presupposing the existence of the expected
> more prototypical /i/ or /u/ and CV syllables.
> 
> Geoffrey S. Nathan
> Faculty Liaison, C&IT
> and Associate Professor, Linguistics Program
> +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT)
> +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics)
> 
> ----- "Daniel L. Everett" <dlevere at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> 
> > From: "Daniel L. Everett" <dlevere at ilstu.edu>
> > To: "Martin Haspelmath" <haspelmath at eva.mpg.de>
> > Cc: "Funknet" <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 3:38:18 AM GMT -10:00 Hawaii
> > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] cross-linguistic categorization
> >
> > As I read this discussion, including Tom G's and Martin H's, I think
> > everyone is right. I am not seeing a conflict here.
> > 
> > Balthasar's use of multivariate analysis seems like exactly the right
> > direction to me. Something the young whippersnappers get that would
> > not have occurred to most field researchers 30 years ago.
> > 
> > Dan
> > 
> > On Mar 14, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Martin Haspelmath wrote:
> > 
> > > Thanks, Edith Moravcsik, for the systematization of the issues, and
> > Tom Givón, for a historical perspective. Here are some reactions from
> > me:
> > >> (a)	THE LEGITIMACY OF CATEGORIZATION
> > >> Following Bill C., Martin H. and Matthew Dryer, one might question
> > the legitimacy of crosslinguistic grammatical categories on grounds
> > that the members of any one of these categories differ from each
> > other. I cannot see why this is a problem. ... The key to the idea is
> > that things can be different in some respects but the same in other
> > respect. Thus, as long as there is some likeness among entities, we
> > are justified in assigning them to the same category without incurring
> > a contradiction.
> > >>  
> > > Yes, of course -- such categories are what I call "comparative
> > concepts". The crucial point is that they are not identical to the
> > descriptive categories that we use to analyze languages. As Dan
> > Everett points out, the IPA is very useful as a set of comparative
> > concepts in phonetics/phonology, even though "no two phonemes and no
> > two phonetic segments are exactly the same cross-linguistically").
> > >    Many linguists (not just generativists) assume (often implicitly)
> > that the notions that typologists work with are also the notions that
> > descriptive linguists working on a single language should use, and
> > that categories in different languages are not just similar, but can
> > be equated. This is what I object to. (For phonology, Bob Ladd has
> > pointed out that many phonologists have worked with the asumption that
> > something like the IPA is a universal alphabet of segmental
> > phonology.)
> > >> (b)	CRITERIA FOR CATEGORIZATION
> > >> In an absolute sense, criteria of classification are arbitrarily
> > (or, in Bill C.’s terminology, opportunistically) chosen. However,
> > there are two ways to justify them. First, if we choose criteria for
> > categorization so that they serve a particular research goal, the
> > choice becomes principled instead of being arbitrary. 
> > > I think the choice of criteria for descriptive categories (for
> > language-particular analyses) is much less arbitrary than the choice
> > of criteria for comparative concepts, because the goal is simple: To
> > describe the language in a consistent and complete way. There are
> > different ways of doing this, but the possibilities are fairly
> > limited, compared to the possibilities of comparing languages with
> > different structures.
> > >> (c)	LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC VERSUS COMPARATIVE CONCEPTS
> > >> It seems to me that Martin H. is right in saying that there are
> > categories that are useful in crosslinguistic comparison but that do
> > not play a role in individual language descriptions; but I don’t think
> > this is necessarily so. For example, in a crosslinguistic study, the
> > concept of argument alignment varying over accusative, ergative, and
> > other types is important but in the grammar of a language that is,
> > say, purely ergatively structured, the concept will not play any role.
> > However, another concept, such as of subject-verb agreement, may be a
> > useful category both in single-language grammars and also in a
> > crosslinguistic typology – even if the details of the construction
> > differ across languages.   
> > > "Agreement" is indeed a highly general concept that at first glance
> > seems to be suited both for language-particular description and
> > cross-linguistic comparison (but of course not "subject-verb
> > agreement", because the meaning "subject" varies strongly across
> > languages). But as Corbett (2006) has shown, the kinds of phenomena
> > that linguists subsume under "agreement" are fairly diverse, and
> > whatever precise definition one chooses, one will only capture part of
> > what usually goes by the term.
> > >    In any event, the main point is that a large number of
> > comparative concepts are irrelevant in language description (such as
> > alignment), and a large number of descriptive categories are
> > irrelevant in language comparison, so the two kinds of entities need
> > to be kept separate in principle.
> > > 
> > > T. Givón writes:
> > >> So now a new coalition of alpha males are splitting off and, in a
> > reprise of Bloomfield's maneuver [of splitting off from Hermann Paul],
> > are narrowing the domain once again. This history is, leastwise to me,
> > profoundly depressing. 
> > > I don't see any narrowing of the domain anywhere. Hermann Paul and
> > the neogrammarians were narrow in that they disregarded the true range
> > of cross-linguistic variation, largely limiting themselves to the
> > languages of the European nation states. Franz Boas's name is missing
> > in Givón's historical narrative -- his lesson on the radical
> > differences between languages needs to be re-taught again and again,
> > because most linguists work on English or some other major language
> > and forget the lesson too easily (not to mention the seductive
> > simplicity of innate universal grammar).      The categorial
> > particularist position advocated by Matthew Dryer, Bill Croft, Gilbert
> > Lazard, Sonia Cristofaro and myself is fully consonant with Hermann
> > Paul, Franz Boas, and Joseph Greenberg, and we were all strongly
> > influenced by T. Givón as well, so I don't see any "coalition
> > warfare". Just normal scientific debate, without any revolutionary
> > rhetoric.
> > >> So far, I have found "universal" categories such as noun/verb or
> > subject/object, and  the complex theory behind them, to be
> > indispensable in my own descriptive field work.
> > > What is clear is that the Greenbergian typological approach has led
> > to much more interesting (and transparent) descriptive grammars -- if
> > one doesn't know at all what to expect, one cannot easily distinguish
> > what is banal from what is special (cf. Dryer 2006). But as in Boas's
> > time, a good grammar describes the language in its own terms, with
> > precisely defined language-particular categories, not in terms of
> > intuitive pretheoretical concepts of "noun/verb" or "subject/object",
> > or in terms of vague prototypes (crucial as these often are for
> > comparison and explanatory theory).
> > > 
> > > Greetings,
> > > Martin Haspelmath
> > > 
> > >
>